It has been zero days since Facebook's latest scandal
January 30, 2019 12:17 PM   Subscribe

Last year (previous Metafilter discussion), Facebook got castigated for pushing users to install their VPN that gave FB access to anything they sent through the supposedly-secure VPN. Like a zombie, it's baaaaaack as Project Atlas... with more hoops for users to go through, an offer to pay them as subjects, and the same Onavo code under the hood. For extra evil added to last year's go-around? Recruiting teens as subjects, and being very sloppy about parental consent. Apple, at least, is very unamused that Facebook has been using Apple's Enterprise program to get around the consequences of last year's go-around with this, and just yanked Facebook's certificate.

Aside from this being par for the course for Facebook, which is infamously sloppy about this (and about questions of user consent in general, witness our recent discussion about children racking up charges on facebook games and Facebook not being willing to put a stop to it, the question of user and subject consent is an additional wrinkle. Facebook has never particularly cared about consent for their research in any meaningful way (perhaps the best-known example is the 2014 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences paper, where they manipulated 300k users' feeds with extremely dubious consent). An element of Project Atlas is worse, since Facebook actively recruited teenage subjects (e.g., below 18 years of age, which means they legally cannot consent to participate in research without parental consent; the rules are pretty clear on this).
posted by Making You Bored For Science (60 comments total) 33 users marked this as a favorite
 
Saw someone posted this link that Google does a similar thing, but more above board?

Oh, and Fuck Facebook.
posted by terrapin at 12:21 PM on January 30 [6 favorites]


Move Fast and Break Things*
*including your developer agreement and any sense of ethical behavior.
posted by SansPoint at 12:22 PM on January 30 [13 favorites]


In the past, I've been pretty critical/skeptical of Apple because of what I perceive as a form of absolutism over their ecosystem and user interface. I don't like how closed iOS is, and I feel like many of their decisions around customizability and interoperability essentially boil down to "do it our way or screw you."

But lately I've also wondered if Apple is the only company in the current market that cares about certain kinds of tech responsibility, for lack of a better phrase: privacy, data control, etc. And it makes me wonder if maybe I need to rethink my prior opinions of Apple as my concern over these kinds of issues increases.
posted by chrominance at 12:29 PM on January 30 [48 favorites]


chrominance, my cynical nature tells me that Apple only cares about your privacy and data control in the context of someone other than them having access to it.
posted by nubs at 12:39 PM on January 30 [19 favorites]


On the one hand, it's pretty frightening that Apple has this level of control over their ecosystem. As a web developer, I've always thought that native mobile apps were a bit of a siren song and a step in the wrong direction; I'd rather see investment in making the web work better for most apps, instead of being beholden to a 3rd party to distribute your app.

On the other hand, fuck Facebook. They could've chosen to not behave unethically or violate Apple's TOS, but obviously didn't. I hope they never get their access back.
posted by Aleyn at 12:39 PM on January 30 [7 favorites]


I've also wondered if Apple is the only company in the current market that cares about certain kinds of tech responsibility

I think they intentionally and carefully show a level of care just above the public's perception of the general industry's level.
posted by Revvy at 12:40 PM on January 30 [28 favorites]




Disclaimer: not a facebookist
posted by infini at 12:48 PM on January 30 [2 favorites]


With regard to Apple's level of control, it's a catch-22.

Facebook was literally distributing and paying people to install malware that bypasses the security controls on iOS. I think we can all agree that if you want to protect users from malicious software, there needs to be some way to disable any piece of malicious software that slips through.

This also means that, yes, they could disable perfectly safe software that does other things they like, but there's no way to have one without the other. In this case, Facebook losing their ability to use their internal apps is a small price to pay and an inconvenience that is proportional in response to the degree to which they've exploited iOS.
posted by SansPoint at 12:54 PM on January 30 [14 favorites]


I went #deletefacebook exactly 7 days ago, although it was 37 days since I hit the button because they hold onto your data for 30 days hoping you'll break and change your mind and log in again after which it pretends you didn't even try to delete it.

I deleted it precisely because of all the repeatedly news of their maladjusted acts but am always say when people ask me why I deleted it and either haven't heard the shitty things they do or don't think it's motivating enough for them to delete Facebook. They are banking on that.
posted by Karaage at 12:58 PM on January 30 [2 favorites]


Who could have predicted Apple's business model of "we charge a lot of money for our stuff" would be so refreshingly consumer-friendly in this year 2019.
posted by ryanrs at 1:12 PM on January 30 [38 favorites]


Facebook was literally distributing and paying people to install malware that bypasses the security controls on iOS. I think we can all agree that if you want to protect users from malicious software, there needs to be some way to disable any piece of malicious software that slips through.

They probably have a way of pulling just this app off of phones. They revoked the whole enterprise key to send a message, mostly to do with the T&Cs of the enterprise apps program.
posted by GuyZero at 1:15 PM on January 30 [3 favorites]


chrominance, my cynical nature tells me that Apple only cares about your privacy and data control in the context of someone other than them having access to it.

Well, an only slightly less cynical view could be: Apple values your privacy because it matches with their business model more than the other Big 4. That is, most of their profit comes from hardware sales, rather than advertising.

just yanked Facebook's certificate

Speaking of cynicism, when I heard yesterday that Facebook had done this, my first thought was "Geez, if this was a smaller developer, they'd have their certs yanked so fast they wouldn't know what hit them, but FB is just Too Big." But here we are.
posted by gwint at 1:15 PM on January 30 [30 favorites]


Whatever their original and ultimate motivations (feel free to speculate!), Apple has created and maintained an environment with an unequaled security reputation. They recognized this as a competitive advantage and have jealousy guarded it. As an iOS user, I am thankful for it.
posted by sjswitzer at 1:21 PM on January 30 [23 favorites]


GuyZero: They probably have a way of pulling just this app off of phones. They revoked the whole enterprise key to send a message, mostly to do with the T&Cs of the enterprise apps program.

And I'm fine with that, thank you.
posted by SansPoint at 1:22 PM on January 30 [1 favorite]


On the one hand, it's pretty frightening that Apple has this level of control over their ecosystem. As a web developer, I've always thought that native mobile apps were a bit of a siren song and a step in the wrong direction; I'd rather see investment in making the web work better for most apps, instead of being beholden to a 3rd party to distribute your app.

As a phone owner, I (and my phone battery) love mobile apps, the web stuff is just not optimal for apps. It still irks me that a lot of apps are thin layers over an embedded browser, but that's fine for the simple stuff that doesn't justify going full blown native.

It irks me I can't run arbitrary apps on my phone without a developer license, but then I see stuff like that and I kinda get why. (free licenses would be fairer though)


Also...

But lately I've also wondered if Apple is the only company in the current market that cares about certain kinds of tech responsibility, for lack of a better phrase: privacy, data control, etc. And it makes me wonder if maybe I need to rethink my prior opinions of Apple as my concern over these kinds of issues increases.

Their model is selling you hardware & their software ecosystem/user experience for profit, so that kind of move makes sense since it preserves the value of what they sell. Facebook is into selling you, so your privacy has negative value for them.
posted by WaterAndPixels at 1:29 PM on January 30 [17 favorites]


They probably have a way of pulling just this app off of phones.

I mean, Apple already banned this app once as Onavo. They didn't yank the enterprise cert until Facebook proved to them that an app ban would be insufficient to change their behavior.
posted by ryanrs at 1:34 PM on January 30 [12 favorites]


I deleted the Facebook and Instagram apps a few months ago; I never used Whatsapp or the Messenger app. I was just beyond fed-up with trusting them. I feel pretty justified.

By the way, you can get access to FB messages in a mobile web browser -- bypassing the forcing to download the Messenger app -- by using mbasic.facebook.com. This little-publicised interface is designed for really dumb web browsers and low bandwidth connections but works just fine to check messages.
posted by seanmpuckett at 1:41 PM on January 30 [34 favorites]


Zuckerberg is butchering an elk tonight for a home dinner with Tim Cook.
posted by benzenedream at 1:41 PM on January 30 [5 favorites]


I've also wondered if Apple is the only company in the current market that cares about certain kinds of tech responsibility

No.
posted by mhoye at 1:44 PM on January 30 [18 favorites]


Thanks for the round-up on this topic, and happy first post!
posted by filthy light thief at 1:52 PM on January 30 [10 favorites]


I don’t get third-party ads in Safari, but I do by default in Firefox. Even Mozilla is not immune to the cold logic of “wait, if I’m not paying for Firefox, who is?”

The answer is Google, almost solely. Mozilla’s attempts to remain independent have forced them to find other, more... traditional sources of revenue. That is, selling users to advertisers. (Oops, sorry, I mean trading a marketing campaign for a marketing campaign, so they can misleadingly claim the ads are not paid for.)
posted by thoroughburro at 1:56 PM on January 30 [2 favorites]


my cynical nature tells me that Apple only cares about your privacy and data control in the context of someone other than them having access to it.

Given that Apple's business model, unlike those of free services like Facebook and Google, doesn't depend on gathering user data in intimate detail, analysing it and monetising the insights, they have a lot less incentive to do so than those whose revenue stream comes from that. In fact, given the issue of privacy, I'd venture that any additional profit gained by violating its paying customers' privacy would be vastly outweighed by the consequences if (or rather when) they got caught doing so.

If they ever start giving iPhones away for free, I'll start to worry.
posted by acb at 2:02 PM on January 30 [7 favorites]


Whatever their original and ultimate motivations (feel free to speculate!), Apple has created and maintained an environment with an unequaled security reputation. They recognized this as a competitive advantage and have jealousy guarded it. As an iOS user, I am thankful for it.

Yeah, let me be clear in my cynicism - Apple is paying attention to this stuff because of the competitive advantage it creates, and I appreciate the fact that they pay attention to it, even if it's out of self-interest more than anything else. I also feel that we've have enough "emperor has no clothes" moments in the tech world that I'm waiting for the day it's revealed that Apple has been more smoke than fire on this front in some way.
posted by nubs at 2:02 PM on January 30 [2 favorites]


Thanks for the mbasic trick, seanmpuckett!
posted by edheil at 2:04 PM on January 30 [2 favorites]


Apple cares deeply about your privacy and security just as long as you don't live in China.

In other news Apple just issued a profits warning because iPhone sales are significantly down, in China.
posted by Lanark at 2:05 PM on January 30 [9 favorites]


I feel like Apple is the Democrats to Google's Republicans and Facebook's John Birchers. From a true radical's perspective they're "all the same" but in day-to-day affects-people's-lives terms there's a huge difference.
posted by edheil at 2:07 PM on January 30 [20 favorites]


I'm happy with this outcome, but I keep thinking that what FB and Google are doing here is essentially Nielsens for the internet. But internet usage is so much more private than TV viewing habits ever were.
posted by macrael at 2:38 PM on January 30




Yeah, I'm calling horseshit. This move is PR spin to offset yesterday's news about Apple's handling of the FaceTime exploit that allowed people to be spied upon. Privacy is a Right When It's Good PR.

/cynicism restored
posted by Christ, what an asshole at 2:47 PM on January 30 [9 favorites]


Mozilla Firefox is inching its way towards disabling third-party tracking cookies by default this year". And currently, with just another click, the associated "content" as well. Likely "blocking most ads". Again, in case you missed it: Firefox 63 preferences already had a built-in option for partial ad-blocking.

This is not technologically neutral; it requires policy. I think it's in a line with the wider, "Do-not-track" flag, which relied on voluntary compliance, in a way that was probably more an attempt to drive legislative policy. Optimistically, I hope Mozilla sticks with this and it helps them carve out a niche. Realistically, now Microsoft Edge is rebased on Chrome, Firefox is under massive pressure just keeping up their compatibility.

I don't understand what Firefox has been doing with their other "experiments", "recommendations", and "partners". I understand people who feel betrayed by them. I'm probably stuck with Firefox whatever. But I know they've been a force for good on the technology, and I really hope we'll see them making a common front with Apple on privacy.
posted by sourcejedi at 2:48 PM on January 30 [14 favorites]


Given how much of Mozilla's money comes from Google, my concern is that they may end up following Chrome into killing the APIs that allow ad blockers to operate, whilst providing a limited ad-blocking service that allows through a few big, “trusted” behavioural-surveillance companies like, say, Google.
posted by acb at 2:51 PM on January 30 [8 favorites]


With regards to the Facetime bug, there's quite a difference between a very bad, privacy violating bug, and a deliberate exploit of another company's OS level security to violate user's privacy.

Could Apple have handled the Facetime bug better? Yes. Does that excuse Facebook's behavior or make Apple's response to it less justified? God no.
posted by SansPoint at 2:56 PM on January 30 [8 favorites]


@acb yeah. That's a reasonable sort of concern to have about Firefox. So far, I don't see where they could put a Google-shaped hole, to let them continue with third-party advert tracking. The Google-shaped hole is "just" the search bar.
posted by sourcejedi at 3:04 PM on January 30


With regards to the Facetime bug, there's quite a difference between a very bad, privacy violating bug, and a deliberate exploit of another company's OS level security to violate user's privacy.

Could Apple have handled the Facetime bug better? Yes. Does that excuse Facebook's behavior or make Apple's response to it less justified? God no.


What about, apparently, sitting on that "very bad, privacy violating bug" for a week.
posted by MikeKD at 3:08 PM on January 30


It's fascinating how one set of behaviors immediately becomes justification for an unrelated set of procedural decisions by an entirely different group of people. No wonder we invented angry gods.

Next up, Reason Five Million Why Everyone Sucks: one of you failed to appropriately enjoy my recent foray into Sazerac manufacture, so clearly you are all doomed. Please await the hordes of flaming locusts.
posted by aramaic at 3:12 PM on January 30 [4 favorites]


That's why I worship Sithrak. We're all doomed to eternal torture no matter what. It just saves so much time.
posted by seanmpuckett at 3:50 PM on January 30 [15 favorites]


Yeah, I'm calling horseshit. This move is PR spin...

Nah, I work for TechCrunch. We've been working on this story for a while.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 4:07 PM on January 30 [27 favorites]


MikeXD: That's exactly what I meant by "could have handled it better." It's a fuck-up, but a fuck up is not the same thing at all as the malicious intent of Facebook's developers and product team that created this piece of malware.
posted by SansPoint at 4:30 PM on January 30 [2 favorites]


And on the same day (today) Facebook released earnings which resulted in a 11-15% gain for shareholders. That's five years of return on a savings account (optimistically) in one day.

Nothing short of completely ending the use of problematic technology, and lobbying the people you know to do the same, will ever work against immoral capitalist pigs. Fuck the internet. It was supposed to allow common people to organize, but all it really did was skew wealth even more. Essentially nobody ever uses the power of the net to collectively threaten corporations into ethical behavior, despite it being no more difficult in principle than spreading any other fucking meme. I support doing it to large, high-margin corps even arbitrarily. Raise wages, Starbucks: here's the meme. That or lose sales. We control you! Why not? Can you imagine the significance of a crowd-sourced 10% reduction in use or sales to a major company.
posted by sylvanshine at 4:37 PM on January 30 [7 favorites]


And I'm fine with that, thank you.

Ain't no dictator like a benevolent dictator.
posted by GuyZero at 4:56 PM on January 30 [1 favorite]


Re ad blocking in Mozilla, I’m on mobile, with no cite handy, but I read a dev thread recently where the devs of various ad block companies were arguing against a proposal to the spec change that would, for all intents and purposes kill ublock and similar products. When I get back to a system, I’ll search my history and try to find it.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 5:49 PM on January 30


SecretAgentSockpuppet: "Re ad blocking in Mozilla, I’m on mobile, with no cite handy, but I read a dev thread recently where the devs of various ad block companies were arguing against a proposal to the spec change that would, for all intents and purposes kill ublock and similar products. When I get back to a system, I’ll search my history and try to find it."

There's some information about that here regarding Chrome.

Here is a Firefox employee justifying Chrome's choice on some website exemplifying other dubious ethical choices...
posted by talking leaf at 6:59 PM on January 30 [4 favorites]


This Is Your Brain Off Facebook from the NYT
posted by chavenet at 5:53 AM on January 31 [2 favorites]


If anyone wants to use a less intrustive form of Facebook, I recommend the Friendly app. It's more or less a wrapper for the mobile interface. It incorporates chat functionality, and doesn't have all of the battery hog background junk of the official app(s).

I have my Facebook feed trimmed down to just the geographically distant friends I wish to keep up with. Friendly helps with cutting a lot of the advertising and other junk.
posted by Fleebnork at 6:49 AM on January 31 [2 favorites]


Fleebnork: Oooh, I've wanted something like this for ages. I use Social Fixer to tame the Facebook experience on the desktop, but have missed having that on mobile. (I only use Messenger on my phone and use the mobile web app for any on-the-go Facebooking.)
posted by SansPoint at 7:11 AM on January 31


This Is Your Brain Off Facebook from the NYT

These articles are problematic, because they portray the problem with these Internet titans as being solvable by everyone just leaving, ignoring that not everyone can leave without suffering a severe degradation of their standard of living because the communities they belong to were built there.

We need to regulate and control these companies, because there's nothing saying that whatever replacements pop up won't have the same problems.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:24 AM on January 31 [2 favorites]


Even regulation isn't a panacea, because that just shifts the problem around, and regulatory capture is a huge industry in America. No, I think the only solution is antitrust. Facebook needs to be broken up.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 7:30 AM on January 31


Here is a Firefox employee justifying Chrome's choice on some website exemplifying other dubious ethical choices...

For whatever it's worth, the specifics of this discussion are novel - related to the Spectre class of vulnerabilities that make high-performance arbitrary code execution an attack surface and which are, quite-upsettingly, baked into the hardware - but at Mozilla this a nuanced and challenging discussion about the balances around safety, agency, integrity and freedom. Which is basically "a day at the office" here, but that's the job.

The biggest reason that this is a challenging discussion for us is that we still believe in the idea of Firefox as more than a browser, but as a trustworthy user agent - a tool that acts on behalf of, and is ultimately responsible to, you.

Taking those actions on your behalf, though, means "run random code from the internet really really fast", which as often as not is like sending somebody in a top-fuel drag racer to do a grocery run. You can do that, sure! Even if it's... kind of risky. And however much engineering it's taken to make that work, once you've done it successfully a few times that's just the level of performance people expect. Sure, my groceries are delivered in four and a half seconds at 350mph, aren't everybody's?

Amusing analogies aside, the space we need to navigate here is one where users have a healthy balance of safety and agency, where we continue to make trustworthy decisions as a browser, and - just as importantly - help you make informed decisions about who and what else you choose to trust, both with respect to our own addons ecosystem and out there on the big bad internet. And while we have different goals as an organization, and different constraints we've put on ourselves because of what we believe, we're going to do that.

Anyway, if you want a bit more control over what information you're sharing, or with who, take a look at the Facebook Container addon we built a little while ago. It lets you use Facebook, but does a good job of keeping Facebook from following you around the rest of the web.
posted by mhoye at 7:31 AM on January 31 [5 favorites]


NoxAeternum: Agreed. Facebook, for better or for worse, has become something akin to indoor plumbing. You can live without it, but people are going to give you very curious looks if you do.

Related Anecdote: A few years ago, I deleted my LinkedIn profile after a very bad experience working for a startup that used the LinkedIn API as a login method. This had serious knock-on effects to my job search, culminating in being point blank asked why I didn't have a profile when interviewing for [REDACTED HOME AND TECH PRODUCT GUIDE WEBSITE] for a social media position. After creating a new profile, my job search improved almost immediately.
posted by SansPoint at 7:32 AM on January 31 [1 favorite]


Apple is Doing More to Police Facebook Than the U.S. Government (Ali Breland, Mother Jones)
“It’s ridiculous that we have to rely on tech companies to regulate other tech companies.”


Apple’s enforcement action against Facebook is a stiffer penalty than any meted out recently by U.S. regulators. While the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is expected to soon hand Facebook a record-breaking fine for violating a series of 2011 agreements, the agency has not taken action on the company since then, despite rising consumer frustration. Data privacy regulation has been proposed by Sens. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and John Kennedy (R-La.), among others, but has not caught serious traction in Congress.

“It’s ridiculous that we have to rely on tech companies to regulate other tech companies,” said Justin Brookman, the director of consumer privacy and tech policy at Consumer Reports Advocacy. “It’s good that Apple is stepping up here, but that’s the government’s job. That’s what consumer protection law is supposed to do.”
posted by ZeusHumms at 8:00 AM on January 31 [5 favorites]


Sheryl Sandberg: The Teens 'Consented' to Putting Facebook Spyware on Their Phones. Also contains reporting on Sandberg's claim that Facebook chose to pull the app from Apple's platform rather than having the rug pulled out from under them.
posted by Nelson at 8:10 AM on January 31 [2 favorites]


You know, when your defense makes you sound like a statutory rapist, it's a good time to take stock of the poor decisions that lead you to this point.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:26 AM on January 31 [13 favorites]


If you mean the COO, she is counting her bad decisions all the way to the bank.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 8:55 AM on January 31 [2 favorites]


Antitrust, jail time, and/or percentage based fines (a la the EU's GDPR) are the only ways to get these fuckers to behave. Sandberg is worth ~ $1.6 billion currently. If you fined her $50,000 a day, it would take ~ 9 years to amount to a 10% fine (by which time she would have recouped it on interest). The fines we are currently levying against businesses and billionaires are laughable, and need to be updated to reflect inequality.
posted by benzenedream at 10:19 AM on January 31 [9 favorites]


There is an anti-antitrust meme out there that says that so or such isn't actually a monopoly, and thus antitrust has nothing to do with anything. This view hinges on evoking the antitrust movement against monopolies of the early 19th century, but doesn't go farther than a superficial understanding of the issues involved.

Monopolies are only one type of market breakdown, one based on imbalance between different agents on the sell side of a market. Imbalances between the sell and buy side, however, are just as damaging, as this destroys the feedback loop that makes competition important. Instead of monopolies, this kind of imbalance results in cartels that divide the market between them.

This is precisely the situation the smartphone app ecosystem is in, for example. Choosing between Apple and Google is becoming / has become an identity signifier, and so it is not subject to competition. The market has been divided into corporate kingdoms where each holds a monopoly on their own app store, but gets to turn sideways to make it seem like they're both playing in the same market.

But as for Facebook, saying they have competitors is like saying you can compete with Standard Oil by going out back and drilling your own. Shatter their ranks and imprison their overlords! In my fantasy game, a face book is a thing Arya Stark would use to display her portfolio.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 11:12 AM on January 31 [8 favorites]


Apple revokes Google's Enterprise Certificate as well.

Say what you will, but Apple is being consistent. I say "Good on Apple."
posted by SansPoint at 1:25 PM on January 31 [6 favorites]


...and turned them all back on again. I do get the feeling we just witnessed a fully operational battle station.
posted by inpHilltr8r at 10:09 PM on January 31 [4 favorites]


If it's for shutting down literal malware, I'm okay with it.
posted by SansPoint at 9:37 AM on February 1 [2 favorites]


I realize that my prior comment in the Life without Tech Giants thread, when German Regulators Just Outlawed Facebook's Whole Ad Business (Emily Dreyfuss for Wired, Feb. 7, 2019), would better fit here.

Following that comment --another day, another European government takes a swing at Facebook: Facebook is a law-breaking “digital gangster,” UK government report says -- UK shouldn't let Facebook "evade all editorial responsibility," lawmakers say. (Jon Brodkin for Ars Technica, Feb. 18, 2019)
Facebook yesterday said it is willing to face "meaningful regulation" after UK lawmakers accused the company of acting like a "digital gangster" that has knowingly violated laws and helped spread Russian misinformation during elections.

A House of Commons committee that oversees media policy chastised Facebook in a report on "disinformation and 'fake news.'"

"Companies like Facebook should not be allowed to behave like 'digital gangsters' in the online world, considering themselves to be ahead of and beyond the law," the report said.

"Facebook's handling of personal data, and its use for political campaigns, are prime and legitimate areas for inspection by regulators, and it should not be able to evade all editorial responsibility for the content shared by its users across its platforms," the report also said.

In response, Facebook said that it "share[s] the committee's concerns about false news and election integrity and are pleased to have made a significant contribution to their investigation over the past 18 months, answering more than 700 questions and with four of our most senior executives giving evidence," according to the BBC.
...
Committee Chair Damian Collins, a member of Parliament from the Conservative Party, said that Facebook did not fully cooperate with the investigation.

"We believe that in its evidence to the committee, Facebook has often deliberately sought to frustrate our work, by giving incomplete, disingenuous and at times misleading answers to our questions," Collins said, according to the BBC.
The article goes on to cite the report's accuasionts that Facebook executives mislead the committee about Russian groups placing political ads in other countries, and that Facebook “knowingly violated” privacy laws.
posted by filthy light thief at 1:10 PM on February 18


« Older You never see the present—you only see the past   |   “Taste the rainbow” Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments